Slashdot Mirror
Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is saying that Steve Jobs doesn't have cancer, but that he needs to disclose all the information about his medical condition so investors can decide. Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential. They argue that, if prominent US presidents legally kept their grave illnesses secret — even while the security of the country was at stake — a simple CEO should be able to do the same: 'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.'"
He has the same right to privacy of these records that you have for all the same reasons.
You want to abridge that right.
Tough titty!
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A four-digit UID with bad karma is still a four-digit UID.
I find it odd that the Times would argue for forced or required invasion of privacy, at the same time they would fight for freedom of speech. This makes me wonder if someone at the Times has invested in Apple in a big way.